conduyt_get_lifecycle_settings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It explains the meaning of each returned field, clarifies that masterStatuses.effective includes built-in defaults not present in the raw settings key, and importantly discloses that intakeDeals may be null for two distinct reasons and that member-tier keys omit it entirely due to admin visibility. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before writing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by field-level clarifications in a single dense sentence. Every clause earns its place by explaining a return value or caveat, though the sentence is long and slightly run-on compared to a crisp front-loaded statement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values—and it does so comprehensively, covering dealWorkingMode, lostPropagation, masterStatuses.effective (including the defaults-vs-customs distinction), and intakeDeals null semantics and visibility tiers. An agent can interpret the response correctly without any further documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document and the description correctly focuses on response semantics instead.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the account's Lifecycle configuration (v2 + v3)'. It clearly scopes what is returned and frames the tool for read-before-write. It does not name the sibling update tools (conduyt_update_master_statuses, conduyt_update_intake_deals, etc.) explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'shaped for read-before-write' gives clear context on when to call it: before mutating lifecycle settings. It stops short of naming the alternative update tools or the conditions under which this tool should not be used, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.